Modernization trends of the tank Merkava Mk-4 (Israel)

107
Tank Merkava Mk-4 is in service with the Israeli army since 2002, and is the main armored means of warfare. Part of the regular troops in the 401 Brigade re-armed with new combat vehicles in the 2005 year, and the 7 Brigade will complete rearmament in the 2013 year. By this time, the combat vehicles and units of the Israeli reservist brigade should be changed. Armored vehicles participated in the fighting, which resulted in the modernization of military equipment.



Merkava Mk-4 BAZ - an improved modification of the Merkava Mk-4

The abbreviation BAZ came from Barak Zoher (translated as "Shining Lightning"), a simplified name for the updated fire control system, which was manufactured by Elbit Ltd (Israel). A distinctive feature of this complex is the ability to follow the target in automatic mode, which greatly increases the possibility of hitting an object with a single shot. In addition, this feature allows tanks withstand airborne low-flying objects, and with the use of standard ammunition. Additionally, the complex is equipped with commander panoramic optics of an independent type. The MANTAK administration, which is responsible for introducing new technologies into the Merkava Mk-4 tank, explains that the abbreviation BAZ does not refer to a specific modification of the Merkava decoy (Mk-4, Mk-3 or another), but only to the one that uses the updated fire control system (SLA).



So, as soon as the administration of MANTAK in 1995 announced that the Merkava Mk-3 BAZ would be equipped with the updated Knights Mk4 control system, Elbit Ltd’s engineers immediately switched to the creation of the TADIR index control system for Merkava Mk-4, which was kept in development until the next century.

The leadership of Israel’s self-defense forces decided that the active armor protection system (SAZB) of the tank should be installed in the combat vehicle over the decade, and in turn, first the IMI system and then the Rafael complex. IAI, through its technical unit, was to install anti-radar sensors. In the 1999, test tests of almost 10 developed Mk-4 tanks were completed, and the combat vehicle was sent for dynamic tests to test new units on the march, for example, the updated German 1500 diesel engine MTU of 883 brand, which won the competitive selection. But the question rested, as always, at the weak financing of the project, and in equipping the Mk-4 it became much more expensive. Then it was decided to start production of licensed units of the company General Dynamics (USA), and take money for further rearmament through the American partner program. By the beginning of the release of the Mk-4 "into the series", the SAZB Trophy was still in development, it was not completed due to financial problems. Serial production of armored vehicles began without SAZB, but the possibility of its installation is provided.

The Israeli command used these fighting vehicles closely in the military operations against the Hezbollah movement in 2006, and the results were disappointing. Despite this, it was the fighting that saved the nearly failed program from being canceled by the government. The development of SAZB was continued, money was found. The MANTAK administration decided on a choice, leaving Iron Fist from IAI and several Aspro systems developed by Rafael. Now SAZBs are equipped not only with Mk-4, but also with earlier modifications, such as the Mk-2 and even lighter military equipment. Now you can already see the Merkava Mk4 with the improved Aspro C SAZB, with the main delivery option of Aspro A, and from 2011, the Merkava Mk-4 BAZ and Merkava Mk-4M are already being released with the updated and adapted Aspro.



After analyzing the failures in the 2006 fighting, the MANTAK administration was authorized to equip one hundred SAZB Trophy II tanks, the BAZ Knight Mk4 Tadir SharpShooter SSA and the L3 propulsion unit with 1500, a powerful engine from the American company General Dynamics.

The next on the agenda was the question of finalizing all the medium-sized Merkava Mk-4 tanks in service in the number of 400 units to the level of security BAZ, which at that time was already manufactured by order of Israel’s self-defense forces. The SAZB Trophy II was released in the “series” in 2007, with two prevailing features. The first is the creation of an identification system for the Duplex mode, when the tank is under fire from systems with different types of ammunition. The second is the possibility of recharging SAZB by the crew from the inside. As a virtue, the possibility of countering the direct hit of a cumulative projectile is noted.

The first series of 30 combat vehicles Mk-4 BAZ left the assembly line at the beginning of 2009, the second - in six months, and the third group of tanks - on the eve of 2011. All these actions of the defense department are an attempt to take into account the mistakes of the military company in 2006 in Lebanon. At the same time, in 2009, the installation of the SAZB Trophy began on all existing Mk-4 machines, and then on the Mk-3. Later, the refinement plan was further strengthened by the new SAZB Trophy II.

New applications for the next two Trophy II batches, as well as the first application for a competitive SAZB from IMI Iron Fist for a heavy Nemer armored personnel carrier, were issued by the new Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The finalization of the Mk-4 “series” is planned for 2012 year.

Modernization trends of the tank Merkava Mk-4 (Israel)


The first Merkava Mk-4 BAZ tanks of the 2007 model of the year were equipped with TADIR, ASPRO fire control systems and new hinged armor elements that have better dynamic characteristics than the Chobham armor complex. The tower part of the tank was modernized, almost all chains were removed from it. The battalion of the 30 combat vehicles completed the combat training process of the units and was deployed in 2009 in the Golan Heights.

Merkava Mk-4 LIC - Israeli tank for fighting in the city

Merkava Mk-4 LIC, the base of which was the combat vehicles Merkava Mark III BAZ or Mark IV BAZ, were produced already adapted for fighting in the conditions of the settlement.

In the tower part of this product is mounted "Spark" machine guns caliber 12,7 mm (instead of the standard 7,62 mm), which creates a rather high density of fire attack without the use of artillery units. The use of a tank gun is ineffective in the city, and even this will lead to a large number of people killed and wounded among the inhabitants of the village. Here, a remote action fire control module is used, which allows the crew to conduct a fire attack from under the armor of the tank.

All places of the tank, traditionally prone to defeat small weapons and fragments of grenades, are protected by a special, particularly strong metal mesh that protects optics, ventilation devices and motor exhaust openings from being hit by a melee weapon. There are special tracked shoes to preserve asphalt pavement, and LED optics makes it possible to move in poor visibility in the city and at night.



Israeli tank Merkava Mk-4M with Aspro

After the military conflict of 2006, the leadership of the Israeli Self-Defense Forces agreed to equip the ASZB ASPRO A combat vehicles (in other sources, Trophy) produced by local firm RAFAEL. Aspro is designed in such a way that it prevents the enemy from attacking from all sides, allowing a low degree of risk of infecting infantry units, which, under the guise of tanks, perform joint tasks. The system actively opposes both the cumulative jet and the dynamic effect of impact-type ammunition detonators. Aspro has several modifications for installation on armored personnel carriers and light combat vehicles.

Tanks equipped with ASPRO A SASBs are known as the Merkava Mk-4M. Their mass production was launched at the end of 2008 of the year, and in the spring of next year they appeared in Israeli military units and formations. In March of this year, they were tested in hostilities in the Gaza Strip.

In the summer of 2010, the main tank Merkava Mk-4 with ASPRO A was presented at the Eurosatory 2010 armament display.

It is possible to install the R-OWS module for combat management and the THOR and Trophy complexes (ASPRO-A) from the Rafael company into the control systems.

R-OWS - modular combat device to control the picture of the battle for armor
Thor is a system for the destruction of various blasting devices using a high-power laser beam.

At the end of 2006, Rafael (Israel) and General Dyanmics (USA) agreed to supply Thor for the needs of the American military complex. Under this agreement, Thor can be installed both on self-propelled combat vehicles and on "Drones", which the US Army takes advantage of.



ASPRO A (Trophy) company RAFAEL (Israel) - SAZB, which is used by new tanks Merkava Mk4M.
The completeness of the complex is represented by four sensors - the radar, the identification system “friend-foe”, the measurement system and the electron-optical reconnaissance Elta II, which identifies the ammunition with which the enemy defeats the survivability of the tank, as well as the detection system of enemy communications. All instruments synthesize the data obtained by constantly introducing corrections to the coordinates of the targets and necessary labels, accompanying the marked targets. A multipath radar produces a continuous circular scanning of the terrain, using both the flat sections of the receiver on the front and rear of the combat vehicle, and an antenna array mounted in the center.

At the end of the summer of 2007, the same company Raphael announced a “miracle armor”, which received the abbreviation M-TAPS. According to the designers, this will be a qualitatively new step in the armor protection of tanks and combat vehicles, a new technology in the manufacture of additional armor protection of the mounted type. The creation of this new "clothing" tank is considered a giant step forward in the technologies of new generation, its characteristics are much higher than that of the Chobham type armor, which is used on many armored complexes of the NATO unit. This is a hinged armored composite protection of the passive type, which serves as an obstacle to the delivery of anti-tank strikes with updated means of armed forces of the countries of the likely enemy, such as double missiles and missiles with a tandem warhead. M-TAPS is structurally designed in a modular version and there is the possibility of mounting the complex in combat situations. The effectiveness of the use of the system against improvised mines, grenades and shells, mines with a shock core and armor-piercing shells 30 mm gun, which is in service with the NATO countries of Bushmaster, has been proved. The new armored complex will be mounted by the BMP Badley (USA), and since 2008, it has already been used on the MRAP-II equipment of the US Marine Corps.

Test field tests are continuing on the use of rocket shots using the barrel bore 120 mm smooth-bore gun. Prototypes of such munitions of various denominations are already available.

Ammunition for the tank that best meets the requirements of modern combat, which have a long range of fire and are equipped with an on-board artificial intelligence system, was produced by Israeli corporations IMI and RAFAEL in a general project with Raytheon Corporation (USA). The engineers and designers of these enterprises created a tank shot, which has a range of over 10 miles, equipped with an onboard GPS navigation system, which helps to find the target with its subsequent defeat within a radius of three yards. Ammunition with a target designation system via satellite enables the crew of the tank, without leaving the armor, to suppress enemy targets, without conducting subsequent control of the perfect shot, so effective is the created ammunition. Illumination of the planned targets is organized with the help of a laser source. It is carried out by unmanned flying vehicles or by another tank crew. This 120 mm EXCALIBUR GPS munition is already in service with the Merkava Mk-4 BAZ.



Since this novelty is capable of eliminating a designated target from a single shot, the number of required ammunition for a combat vehicle is significantly reduced. This will significantly reduce the tension in the work of the rear units during the transportation and delivery of tank shots. “Artificial intelligence” mortar ammunition - an alliance of computer devices, navigation and directory equipment, which operates online.

In 2007, the main tank Merkava Mk-4 B began using the new 120 mm shots from ARAM, the Israeli firm IMI. The main purpose of the use of these shells is the destruction and suppression of the actions of the enemy's motorized infantry units. The shot is a cluster projectile, which, after leaving the barrel bore, is subdivided into 6 individual warheads, providing the target area with air gaps based on the shrapnel principle. The use of such types of ammunition shows high efficiency when the enemy conducts urban battles on the principle of "partisan" war.
Automatic loading system for drum-type ammunition with a capacity of 10 shots.
In the production of charging, a computerized microprocessor “automatic” is used according to the choice of the type of shot.
It is electrically operated and rated for 120 mm ammunition. This complex is protected from direct contact and protects the crew in case of a self-explosion, being in the isolated compartment of the tower complex. Managed from the combat compartment of the armored vehicle. The system program is designed to choose from 10 different types of tank shots, which must be replenished if necessary.



Soltam (recently acquired by Elbit) prepared a stationary anti-personnel 60-mm commander mortar for delivery to the Merkava tank complex. Mounted in the commander's compartment, designed for firing mortar shots through the hole in the hull of the tank. Firing range up to 2700 meters. Ammunition is 30 shots. Aiming and firing takes place automatically using computer programs. Scope - local armed conflicts, "guerrilla" war, fighting in the city

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. and1975
    -20
    14 January 2012 09: 32
    "Merkava" T-72 puts only time to pull up tights I know not by hearsay, although a much more outdated tank, unlike the Jewish one, which is constantly being modernized in the event of a war with Iran, it is necessary to deliver our tanks at least for the time that is left for the number of there are more of them and there the pendostan will be tightened ...
    1. Phoenixl
      +10
      14 January 2012 09: 51
      I know by hearsay

      Did he put it himself?
  2. -2
    14 January 2012 09: 38
    The grenade launcher is embarrassing.

    stationary anti-personnel 60-mm commander grenade launcher. It is mounted in the command compartment and is designed to fire grenade shots through an opening in the tank body. Firing range from 2700 to 3700 meters.

    maybe all the same mortar? And the range of use is somehow strange --- from 2.7 km, as it is not urban and anti-partisan.
    1. snek
      0
      14 January 2012 16: 34
      In the articles that I met him and called the mortar.
      By the way, like a useful piece. At least during the modernization, no one began to clean it.
      1. sergyi
        0
        14 January 2012 18: 01
        This is still a grenade launcher, as it is written in the original
        http://www.autobusiness.in.ua/article_1654.html
        An analogue in functionality is the underbarrel grenade launcher in small arms. After all, no one is confused by such a term? And this is the same.
        1. +1
          14 January 2012 18: 06
          And yet the mortar:
          1. Setevik
            -2
            14 January 2012 19: 16
            And what is the fundamental difference? Passive-reactive projectile launch (aka RPG, aka mortar)
    2. 0
      31 August 2012 23: 20
      The grenade launcher is embarrassing.

      Of course a grenade launcher.
      It interested me. Effectively.
  3. and1975
    -14
    14 January 2012 10: 04
    Phoenixl if you don’t know then don’t sculpt the hunchback T-72 belong to the old-style tanks, while the car was created for decades to come; besides, I often communicate with people who serve in the tank troops and know what I'm talking about.
    1. FROST
      -2
      14 January 2012 10: 58
      Wake up, the T-72 is long out of date. He is very much inferior to Merkava in all respects. Both in terms of armor protection and firepower, as well as in dynamic character cameras and technical equipment.
    2. +7
      14 January 2012 15: 00
      and1975,
      respected and1975, the T-72 is certainly good for its time, while IMHO, created for different theaters is also more universal, however, before declaring such things as in the first comment, give at least one fact, otherwise it turns out that knowledge then yours is based solely on "hearsay" ...
      minus - definitely
      1. snek
        +6
        14 January 2012 16: 36
        Yes, it’s generally easy to compare Merkava and T-72 - both cars have a bunch of modifications that differ significantly in characteristics. Plus, tanks were created for different tasks and different theaters of operations.
  4. +4
    14 January 2012 12: 44
    It was these tanks that our mine wanted. defense. That's just my question: can they work in our conditions? I have something in this I doubt.
    1. KGB161rus
      +5
      14 January 2012 15: 00
      Of course they won’t be able to, the tank is imprisoned (like previous models) except for the desert, well, fighting in urban conditions, this tank is very large and heavy, so it’s no wonder that Israel boasts of its survivability, our tank builders from the USSR chose another branch, first of all we always had a low silhouette, Mark 4 naturally surpasses in electronics, a protective capsule of the crew, well, and his gun is modern. . .
      1. +2
        14 January 2012 16: 55
        1. Some comments are taken into account and corrected in the article.
        2. Speak for the desert? winked





        PS Semi-automatic loading:
        1. +1
          14 January 2012 17: 27
          about the mortar, so much better.

          still a photo of a pair of 50 caliber.
          And by the way, the minamet stood on the mercenaries with the MK2 so precisely and vryatli it can be considered counter-guerrilla .. gadget .. just add armament - you can’t spoil the porridge with oil --- you could change the coaxial machine gun for 20 mm as for the French AMX 30 am
          1. +1
            16 January 2012 01: 00
            still a photo of a pair of 50 caliber.





        2. Phoenixl
          -1
          14 January 2012 18: 30
          I also think that sharpening for the desert is nonsense
          The only thing maybe maybe problems with the plant at low temperatures
          1. 0
            14 January 2012 18: 44
            German diesel - I think they learned from the winter 1941 ...
            1. KGB161rus
              0
              14 January 2012 18: 46
              Professor

              Israel is not California, there is winter too. . and what do you want to say, tanks under 60 tons are not suitable for us.
          2. Scythian Turanian
            +5
            14 January 2012 18: 53
            Phoenixl,
            The only correct guess, or rather the essence of the idea.
            The first batch of Merkava weighed 60 tons. And he calmly in combat conditions, operated in the Lebanese mountains, below there are groves of Lebanese cedars, a little higher freezing temperatures, steep mountain roads and snow under steep slopes. I went for some reason. Probably the tankers of the "Merkava" don’t know. That inoSmi write bad permeability of tanks, under such conditions. If semi-literate Israeli tankers read the press, they would not go in the mountains at sub-zero temperatures. 83-84 years



            The "tiger" of the first modification weighed 55 tons almost the same, but traveled to the USSR, where there are no roads, as you know .. In the autumn and winter, in the conditions of autumn slackness of impassable roads and snow, and even managed to fight ... Especially near Leningrad, where well known forests and swamps. The only minus of the "merkavas" from the tiger is narrow caterpillars, which increases the pressure on the ground.

            1. KGB161rus
              +1
              14 January 2012 19: 00
              Scythian Turanian

              It didn’t stop fighting, it’s not necessary to tell, as it was, the blurred roads, because of the rains, the dirt adhering made the tanks stop, the mass of the tank was doing its job.
            2. Setevik
              +4
              14 January 2012 19: 35
              Quote: Scythian Turanian
              The only minus of the "merkavas" from the tiger "is the narrow caterpillars, which increases the pressure on the ground. It is not necessary, in the conditions of Arab settlements and deserts, and the rocky Golan heights


              The width of the Merkava trucks - 640 mm
              Tiger 1 - 520 or 725 mm But Merkava was never used where the Tiger crawled (swamps and deep snow). The Germans had strong problems with the chess arrangement of the rinks - if the dirt froze between them, then ...
            3. +2
              14 January 2012 19: 47
              So the tigers also traveled, and doubts gnaw at me that Merkava 4 weighs with all the bells and whistles of 65 tons, that cunning Jews do not finish tongue
              1. Scythian Turanian
                +3
                14 January 2012 20: 32
                Kars,
                Full combat weight (filled with fuel and ammunition) weight "Merkava-4": 68 tons. 7 tons difference compared to Tiger-2 "royal tiger" (61 tons)

                And you yourself are not cunning. Also, the tiger was stuck in a river (maybe it came out later, the crew sits like on a tank, makes a smoke break)

                Here is the Soviet T-34 -76 (it is much lighter than a tiger of only 25 tons)



                Bogged down in a swamp and abandoned by the crew, the Soviet T-34-76 medium tank.

                This is from the site "Military Album" (There are different photos of the war, with explanations under the photo. You can find a photo, for example, the T-34 vodmech lost control and the tank drove into a ditch, hooked with cables but could not pull it out, blew up the engine and threw it)
                1. +3
                  14 January 2012 21: 34
                  As for the total mass of the Merkava - about four years old, only the data were put into service were about 70 tons.
                  A photo of stuck tigers is not only in the rivers --- there are in the craters, there are in the trenches --- and I visit the military album site regularly.

                  But overcoming the water borders - which is not enough in the desert sheets - is another question - as in the European region water barriers are encountered more often than in Israel and the surrounding area.
            4. AK61
              +1
              17 January 2012 14: 28
              And it seems that it was in the swamps near Leningrad that the Germans lost one of the first "Tigers" - he got stuck corny.
              1. gor
                gor
                +2
                23 January 2012 12: 58
                yes, in principle, the merkava differs from other tanks only in the front engine position, and its cross-country ability should not differ from the mass of other tanks, so it’s stupid to say that it’s exclusively for the desert. There is a plus in the fact that it was created for mountainous areas and its suspension is better than on other tanks. and the tank is not bad at all
        3. 0
          31 August 2012 23: 27
          Well you give, Professor!
  5. +6
    14 January 2012 13: 37
    Interestingly, the author of the article did not mess up anything? He's writing:

    Medium tank Merkava Mk-4 has been in service with the Israeli army since 2002


    However, I will not be mistaken if I say that Merkava is more likely the BASIC COMBAT TANK, and not the average one.
    And it’s strange to call it average with a weight of 65 tons. How much then would a heavy one weigh, according to the author?
    1. sergyi
      +4
      14 January 2012 17: 55
      Just this article is ripped off with
      http://www.autobusiness.in.ua/article_1654.html
      And in order not to look like spam to search engines and not to indicate authorship, some words were changed. So MBT became a medium tank, for example.
  6. 755962
    +3
    14 January 2012 17: 07
    The "Chariot" with its disadvantages (weight and speed) remains one of the best tanks in terms of crew protection, thanks to its layout (engine compartment in front). They burn like without it, but the crew has a chance ...
  7. +3
    14 January 2012 17: 19
    Merkava, the tank is certainly modern. But it’s imperfect. In fact, it’s not a tank but a hybrid of a heavy BMP and a tank turret. The first mercenaries T-72 coped undoubtedly, but our designers took the fire extinguishing system from the merkava. Some other things. Underestimating the competitor is silly shouting that our old tanks are better. We need to study foreign tanks and take the best and put on ours. The same T-72 BAs that modernize for the army are long outdated, they do not reach the T-90. The T-90 has security flaws. We need to upgrade the t-90, not the t-72. The designers understand this. But our management wants to save. It will cost more to build a new tank, after losing outdated, than a small repair of a more advanced tank.
    1. +2
      14 January 2012 17: 31
      the first mercenaries T-72 undoubtedly coped

      I could not cope - they did not meet ...
      1. KGB161rus
        -5
        14 January 2012 19: 19
        Professor
        And what was the matter, of course we met, only it was already the Syrian T-72, even as we met. .
        I even heard that we met with the American Abrams, in the same place. .
        1. -3
          14 January 2012 19: 33
          Do not believe the tales, this topic is sucked from all sides ....
          Unless of course you have other evidence besides retelling the speculations of some military advisers.
          1. KGB161rus
            -3
            14 January 2012 19: 35
            And what is not clear then ?! why fairy tales, why Syria could not have a T-72 ?!
            WE have been cooperating with them since the 60s. . or where is the fiction here, I can’t understand ?!
            1. 0
              14 January 2012 19: 39
              Dear, well, of course, Syria had T-72, but they missed with Merkava.
              Do not be lazy, delve into my comments for the last month or look on this site for an article about "which fight was not."
              1. KGB161rus
                -2
                14 January 2012 19: 45
                What nonsense ?! respected smile , Lebanon war of 82 years, what should I look for, our tanks took part in it, the first American tanks Abrams (then still secret ones were there), Mark 1 was definitely there!
                1. -3
                  14 January 2012 19: 53
                  The fight, which was not

                  Mark 1 definitely was!

                  Evidence in the studio !!!
                  1. KGB161rus
                    +3
                    14 January 2012 20: 00
                    The main tank "Merkava"

                    To develop the Merkava tank (the so-called biblical war chariots), two units were organized: in the Ministry of Defense - a program management bureau, and in the technical troops - a design bureau. The program began in 1970, and the supply of vehicles to the troops began in 1977.

                    Tanks "Merkava" MK1 were first used during the hostilities in Lebanon in 1982 and have shown sufficient effectiveness, especially in terms of protecting the crew.
                    1. -4
                      14 January 2012 20: 01
                      Meet the evidence with the T-72 !!!
                      1. KGB161rus
                        +3
                        14 January 2012 20: 16
                        After the end of the fighting in Lebanon in 1982, Syrian President H. Asad said in an interview: “The T-72 tank is the best in the world” - and emphasized that the Israeli tank crews could not destroy or line up any such Soviet-made vehicles. An indirect confirmation of this may be the fact that, prior to 1987, neither the Americans nor the Israelis had a single more or less whole T-72 tank. During those events in the confrontation between Syrian and Israeli tankmen, those who had the best tanks won. In cases where there were "seventy-twos" and "Merkava", won the Soviet technology. So, for example, according to a participant in those events, Syrian Army officer Mazin Fauri, in his eyes the T-72 tank with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile (armored-piercing and cumulative at that time had already ended) "shot" the tower from an Israeli Merkava tank .

                        What I’m sure for sure is that they underestimated their losses and exaggerated the losses of the enemy (in general terms), so why could these two tanks not meet at least a couple of times ?!
                      2. Scythian Turanian
                        +4
                        14 January 2012 20: 49
                        KGB161rus,
                        Also, the Syrians and the USSR did not have a single "Abrams" and "Merkavas" in the same 1987. They did not meet because. What would the T-72 went to amers and Israelis and ours.

                        But the M-48 "Patton" or the Israeli name MAGAH with a hinged DZ "blazer" (the newest secret protection at that time, there was no one then). Caught in the hands of the Syrians as a trophy in the Bekaa Valley. There they fought against the Syrian tank units armed with T-55 T-62 tanks of the same year and age. But not 72

                        And now this trophy "Paton" or MAGAH, exported from Lebanon, stands in the Cuban Museum

                      3. KGB161rus
                        +3
                        14 January 2012 21: 11
                        Hapay Sergeant lol

                        “For the first time, Abrams sniffed gunpowder in 1982. According to the story of a Soviet military adviser who was taking part in training Syrian tankers on T72 tanks that had just arrived in Syria at the time, this incident occurred during a break-in march by three T72 tanks in southern Lebanon shortly before the Israeli aggression against this country (Operation Peace Halley ”), the column, moving along the road, went around a large hill, and when the first tank in which the narrator was located began to leave the hill, he suddenly found at an distance of about 800 meters three unknown tanks that did not look like Israeli. These tanks also moved in a convoy and, finding Syrian vehicles, quickly began to rebuild in line for the attack. Unknown vehicles were the first to fire, our third tank, which had just left the hill, got into the tower. The tank did not penetrate the projectile, however, due to a strong dynamic impact, the car died out. The crew at the same time received a medium concussion. The second enemy tank, firing almost immediately with the first shot, hit the T72 medium tank in the convoy in the aft compartment, disabling the engine.

                        Seeing such aggressive behavior of strangers, the narrator, being the tank commander, gave the order to open fire on the far right tank and after its defeat on the middle one. Here, the adviser noted the high skills of the Syrian gunner, who did not allow a single delay during aiming and firing. It was decided to use BPS. Having fired two shots at intervals of approximately 7 seconds, they achieved two hits, both of them in the towers. The remaining third tank, leaving behind two wounded, tried to evacuate the wounded and killed. However, he could not do this completely, since the T72 opened fire from a coaxial machine gun. Taking the wounded, an unknown tank quickly retreated.

                        Having approached the wrecked cars and making sure that no one is dangerous, the crew, having climbed out, examined the tanks. Doubts that these were not Israeli tanks were confirmed, since they were neither like the Centurion, nor the M60, nor even the newly appeared Merkava, the adviser saw his photographs and therefore he could not confuse. The uniform of the two killed tankers was also not similar to the Israeli one. They wanted to take one tank in tow, but after calculating the remaining fuel (it was necessary to tow their own tank), they decided to get to the unit and report to the authorities about the location of the enemy car, and then take measures to evacuate. The shell-shocked crew, having regained consciousness, was able to start the tank, and the convoy advanced on the return trip. However, the planned time for the route, for technical reasons, tripled, and the tanks arrived home only at night. Having reported on the incident in a form, we decided to send intelligence immediately in the morning. However, there were many doubts that anything would remain, which was confirmed the next morning. In the square where the battle took place, there were no wrecked tanks, but there were many traces of wheeled vehicles, apparently tractors, which evacuated the tanks.

                        Subsequently, when comparing photographs to identify the tanks with which the collision occurred, the American M1 Abrams was identified in it, to the surprise of many. Apparently he was tested in Israel in order to familiarize Israeli experts with the tank, but why did you need to start the battle, if the tank is secret, no one understood. Some suggested that having a faster tank and, as the Abrams crews believed, a more reliable reservation, they wanted to impose a battle at a distance favorable to them and, if possible, probably take a trophy, because 112 neither the Americans nor the Israelis there was no period. The outcome of this fight, which can be said with certainty, remained with the Syrians, and raised in them a higher level of assessment of the security and effectiveness of the weapons of the new Soviet tanks. ”
                      4. -7
                        14 January 2012 21: 29
                        According to the story of a Soviet military adviser ...

                        Be serious, do not write these fables. Who is that mysterious adviser? FULL NAME? Where are the photos, samples? In other words Evidence?

                        What should I show you the photo, where I will take them, strange man. .

                        Let's stay on you. There is no material evidence - there is nothing to discuss. The President of Syria then said a lot of things ....
                      5. KGB161rus
                        0
                        14 January 2012 21: 41
                        Well, for that matter, what important things do we make of you, that to me then these maps, routes, tanks in the town, they are exactly 82 years old, of course, is this evidence ?! I, too, will turn everything inside out, you still do not understand a damn thing, what kind of people here are meticulous!
                      6. Scythian Turanian
                        0
                        14 January 2012 21: 37
                        KGB161rus,

                        According to the story of a Soviet military adviser who was taking part in the training of Syrian tankmen at that time


                        It turned out that these "some military advisers of advisers" are like uncut sabak ... and no one knows their names


                        What do you smell yourself? Judging by the smiley-Obviously not gunpowder .. something is heavier ... And now, as you read and believe, hallucinations of different authors who, too, are clearly not sniffing gunpowder, but also on a cigarette, on the Internet. They post on different resources (the Internet will endure everything) and in magazines from the yellow press they would have read (the modern man in the street loves sensations and swallows the bait) different articles on this topic. "from the words of the phantom advisers of the nameless" do not know where the former came from. And do they even exist ..

                        A sort of patriots. As in one movie comedy "Soldiers of Failure"

                        " 1969 10 US Marines. Bldg. was landed in the jungle of Vietnam for special operations ...

                        Four of those 10 survived ...

                        Of those four, three wrote a book about those events ..

                        Of those three books, two were published and went into circulation ...

                        Of those two books, one formed the basis of this film ...

                        And this film is about real and strong-willed men ... "

                        And in the end it turns out that the author of the book, posing as a war veteran, and the book is a memoir that was filmed in the form of a film ... I didn’t serve in Vietnam at all, not even participated in some secret mission of the Marine Corps. Along the way, the pyrotechnician who participated in the project of creating the film a little had a fight with him and spat in his face. And that false veteran was anointed. - I am a PATRIOT OF THE COUNTRY !!! I wanted to raise the fighting spirit of the Americans ...
                      7. KGB161rus
                        +1
                        14 January 2012 21: 46
                        Well, give me a weighty argument, what you don't bring with the professor, everything is wrong and wrong, so why should yours be like that? because you are the most literate? your "sources" are not the same, what are you pretending to be?
                      8. Efimk47
                        0
                        16 January 2012 00: 24
                        Lies in the spirit of a scoop and Arabs. We defeated them but they were not there ...
                      9. gor
                        gor
                        0
                        23 January 2012 13: 00
                        and with the clear superiority of the Syrians, the Jews once again defeated everyone))))))))))))))))))))))) interesting ???????????
                      10. gor
                        gor
                        0
                        23 January 2012 13: 24
                        and what else could the Assad say? said that the T-72 is bad so who else would have allocated tanks for it to the ball, except for the Soviet Union?
                  2. KGB161rus
                    -1
                    14 January 2012 20: 12
                    Even UAVs were used in this war, so why couldn't they meet?
                    1. +1
                      14 January 2012 20: 34
                      1. KGB161rus
                        -3
                        14 January 2012 20: 40
                        In short, I couldn’t because it’s so written, did I understand correctly?
                      2. -3
                        14 January 2012 21: 05
                        You started with statements - went to the questions. But they did not meet because they were geographically in different places. Well, it didn’t work out. If you have proof of otherwise, you are welcome.
                      3. KGB161rus
                        -2
                        14 January 2012 21: 33
                        prof
                        It was a question of a different nature (I already laid out where the Syrian president was).

                        What should I show you the photo, where I will take them, strange man. .

                        Now prove to me why they could not meet? , the fact that you posted me was not inspired! Why the same padded Mark 1 could not be taken out of the battlefield under the guise, why (I, like you, rest your horn). .
                      4. -6
                        14 January 2012 21: 43
                        Now prove to me why they could not meet? , the fact that you posted me was not inspired! Why the same padded Mark 1 could not be taken out of the battlefield under the guise, why (I, like you, rest your horn). .

                        Where to get it? Who and most importantly why? so you can get to the questions: Why couldn't a UFO fight there?
                        Once again, re-read the link I posted, there are all the answers.
                        If this resource does not suit you, then stay with your opinion.
                    2. Scythian Turanian
                      +1
                      14 January 2012 20: 59
                      KGB161rus,

                      Yes, because the T-72A is later than the T-72m. Only recently began to be equipped with tank divisions of Syria. And by the beginning of the war, T-72s were only in the guard presidential tank division of H. Assad (along with the older T-62 and T-55)
                      And the t-72 was at the beginning of the conflict 20 pieces, the crew for them only trained. Only at the end of the war were they able to bring them to a more acceptable number, and then for one division in the amount of more than 100 pieces. And the crew. For them, cooking time is needed. But of course there are facts that in the second phase of the military operation the T-72 was deployed in some areas, in particular on the Beirut-Tir highway, where the Israelis launched an offensive, but there were Paton and M-60 and the battle was episodic. Since Israeli aviation interfered
    2. +1
      14 January 2012 19: 14
      So the T-90 campaign is a modification of the T-72 by and large ...
      1. Mr. tank
        -4
        14 January 2012 19: 17
        The T-72 was closed in the 80s for the USSR army, now the modernization of the T-72 is closed for the Russian army
        1. +5
          14 January 2012 20: 07
          Lying then why?
          Throughout 2011, the factory was only engaged in the modernization of the T-72. In terms of money for military products, there was more profit than in 2010.
          They put a new gun (the rigidity of the barrel is increased by a quarter), a modern FCS, a new automatic loader (under 740 mm crowbars), a transmission with 1000 engine, and modernize the chassis.
          Information from the UVZ website.
        2. +1
          14 January 2012 20: 58
          Quote: Mr. Tank
          The T-72 was closed in the 80s for the USSR army, now the modernization of the T-72 is closed for the Russian army

          ".......... In general, it turns out interesting ... On the one hand, the Russian Defense Ministry does not seem to order the T-90A, but in fact it receives cars no worse, and in large quantities. Let me explain. the modernized T-72BA from the T-90A: the absence of a ZPU, the command observation device "Agat", "Curtains", the old armored structure of the hull and turret is a passive; and in the assets of the "Slingshot" control system with a multichannel sight "Sosna-U" the same as the T-90A cannon - 2A46M-5, a new AZ under the BPS L = 740mm, also MTO with a 1000-horsepower V-92S2, the same suspension, even the DZ and that is the same. In fact, this is the same Slingshot, but without " Relic "- for some reason this DZ complex cannot make its way into our troops. Unlike Slingshot, these machines do not have a device for recording the thermal bending of the barrel, probably there is no automatic target tracking, as if there is no auxiliary power unit - that's like all the “losses.” As a result, if we sum up all these pros and cons, then somewhere approximately it turns out that the updated T-72BA approaching the T-90A. But if the T-90A our Ministry of Defense purchased a maximum of 63 vehicles per year, then here is a three-year contract with the rate of modernization of 110 vehicles annually - not bad for our times ......... "http: //gurkhan.blogspot. com / 2011/12 / 72.html
  8. coast
    +1
    14 January 2012 17: 23
    the tank is good, there is also an automatic loader there, the armata seems to be made according to a similar campaign, but the tower will not be inhabited
    1. -4
      14 January 2012 17: 32
      another automatic loader there

      Semi-automatic limited, IHMO.
      1. Mr. tank
        -3
        14 January 2012 19: 18
        Quote: professor
        Semi-automatic limited, IHMO.

        Poorly
  9. grizzlir
    0
    14 January 2012 19: 48
    Israel created a very good tank, sharpened for use in its region. The fourth Merkava is much more different from the first than the T90 from the seventy-second, and in the seventy-second there is simply a huge modernization potential. In modern Russia, with its meager funding for military programs, it can be and it was worth creating an upgraded version of the tank on the basis of the T80 or T90, rather than thinking about purchasing heavy weapons in the west and not making the main bet on the development of new generation tanks. A completely new base for the tank is absolutely necessary, but let's be realistic, the government is not ready to finance the development of new designs, and existing tank designs were frozen.
  10. serezhafedotow
    -1
    14 January 2012 20: 13
    Quote: grizzlir
    The government is not ready to finance the development of new models, and existing tank projects are frozen.

    glizzlir ,, Armata ,, is being developed with might and main!
    1. grizzlir
      0
      14 January 2012 20: 39
      Yes, I agree, the development is going badly, the fate of the T95 would not have befallen Armata. Armata "really has every chance of becoming the main tank of the Russian Armed Forces, the only thing that can interfere with the implementation of the project is the unpredictability of officials from the Ministry of Defense, who at any time can stop work. Unfortunately, there are examples of this and the T95 is an illustrative example.
  11. +1
    14 January 2012 20: 31
    I suppose that the Merkava's forehead will be weaker than the Abrams and Leopard.
    The heavy weight of the frontal protection of the Abrams and Leopard is balanced by the engine. For balance, the tower of the "Merkava" was shifted back, but the bulk of the mass of the tower is still in its front part, but it is not visible that it would sink to the nose.
    In addition, forward gear housings bulge forward, which would not be the case with the normal thickness of the front sheet. For example, our T-72 has a forehead of armored plates with textolite more than 20 cm thick.
    And the thickness of the top sheet can be estimated on the MTO cover.
    1. 0
      15 January 2012 00: 50
      Quote: Bad_gr
      And the thickness of the top sheet can be estimated on the MTO cover.
  12. serezhafedotow
    -2
    14 January 2012 21: 57
    Quote: grizzlir
    .Armat "really has every chance of becoming the main

    Unless, of course, those who stand on the rostrum on Bolotnaya and on Sakharov Ave. do not rock the country.
  13. evening
    +1
    15 January 2012 00: 16
    The abbreviation BAZ came from Barak Zoher (translated as "Shining Lightning"), a simplified name for the updated fire control system, which was manufactured by Elbit Ltd (Israel). A distinctive feature of this complex is the ability to follow the target in automatic mode, which greatly increases the possibility of hitting an object with a single shot
    For the Merkava, in particular, this function is ineffective. "Following" the target is harmful "to health" - you have to shoot right away.
    Autotracking is useful for systems with TOURs, where exactly the following of the target in the guidance process is required. Like the T-90.
    In addition, this feature allows tanks to withstand airborne low-flying objects, and with the use of standard ammunition. Tales of it. Tank SLA does not provide for the destruction of air targets, because the range finder detects the range to the target a couple of seconds before the projectile leaves. Accordingly, shooting parameters are also formed. Those. the projectile will aim at the range at which the target was in 5-10 seconds BEFORE.
    the abbreviation BAZ does not refer to a specific modification of the Merkava decoy (Mk-4, Mk-3 or another), but only to the one where the updated fire control system (LMS) is applied.Something not to see at Merkava devices for measuring the bending of the trunk. And this is a clear minus for the final accuracy of the gun.
    updated German 1500-horsepower MTU diesel brand 883, which won the competitive selection. The engine is undoubtedly good. But in the minimized MTO of the Merkava it is "cramped". Therefore, glitches immediately got out - defects in the power plant. Which required six months of improvements. It is not known what was finalized in the end. Most likely, the problem is in the inability of the cooling system to cope, due to the non-optimal design of the MTO. And the solution could be to limit engine power in hot conditions.
    Recently, information was again passed on the mass failure of the Mk-4 engines.
    Soltam (recently acquired by Elbit) has prepared a 60-mm stationary anti-personnel commander mortar for delivery to the Merkava tank complex. This is one of the signs of unsatisfactory coordination in the IDF, which is why it is necessary to shove the entire set of weapons and equipment into the tank.
  14. sams
    -7
    15 January 2012 11: 04
    Beautiful tank.
    No doubt about it.
    My suggestion:
    1. Prevent Jews from changing names
    2. Deny them education
    3. Prohibit them from doing business in our territory
    4. and so on

    Beautiful tank.
    No doubt about it.
    My suggestion:
    1. Prevent Jews from changing names
    2. Deny them education
    3. Prohibit them from doing business in our territory
    4. and so on
    1. +5
      15 January 2012 11: 31
      Do you have an inferiority complex ???
      1. sams
        -8
        15 January 2012 12: 03
        The inferiority complex is inferiority.
        Do you want to argue?
    2. Phoenixl
      +2
      15 January 2012 14: 23
      What else is this for?
  15. Freedom eagle
    +5
    15 January 2012 11: 52
    Quote: KGB161rus
    Hapay Sergeant

    This essay is a complete mess. Already many times this myth is dispelled on the pages of Russian-language publications, here that is not a line, it is a lie. This phrase alone is enough to no longer doubt the falsity of this myth:


    quite unexpectedly, he found at a distance of approximately 800 meters three unknowns tanks that were not like Israeli.


    Photos of the M1 "Abrams" were published in various western specialized editions already in the late 70s, in the Soviet magazine "Foreign Military Review" I saw pictures of it already in the issues of 80-81, so that this tank in The 82nd year could not have been, especially for a PROFESSIONAL TANKIST (!) Which was supposed to be a "military advisor" without a name, surname and rank.
    Quote: KGB161rus
    Well, give me a weighty argument, what you don't bring with the professor, everything is wrong and wrong, so why should yours be like that? because you are the most literate? your "sources" are not the same, what are you pretending to be?

    A weighty argument read above.
    1. KGB161rus
      -5
      15 January 2012 13: 35
      Shkolota opinions I still forgot to ask!
  16. sergyi
    +3
    15 January 2012 12: 05
    The article is interesting but stolen from here:
    http://www.autobusiness.in.ua/article_1654.html
    Although errors have been added.
  17. +1
    15 January 2012 13: 38
    An interesting fact is that the Merkava has an engine from the front.
  18. evening
    -1
    15 January 2012 14: 46
    mounted armored modules Mk-4 are relatively light, as evidenced by frail eyebrows for their installation. It follows that these armored modules are designed against cumulative shells. Which contradicts the statement in the article that they can hold kinetics as well.
    Another comment - on a semiautomatic device with shells. Simple styling, like with Abrams and Leo with others, would provide more shells. But IMHO, the very high height of Merkava would not allow the bullet to get shells from the upper stacking cells. Therefore, IMHO had to fence this semiautomatic device, which impairs reliability, like any mechanism.
    In addition, the MK-4 does not have knockout panels in this installation, because this indecent mechanism is there. As a result, the defeat of the semiautomatic device will lead to the explosion of shells in it, with the annihilation of carrots.
  19. -2
    15 January 2012 15: 03
    Simple styling, like with Abrams and Leo with others, would provide more shells.

    With modern SLA, more ammunition is not critical.
    A semiautomatic device (store on 10 shots) is optional and, if desired, may not contain shots at all, which by the way are stored in individual heat-resistant containers.
  20. Freedom eagle
    +6
    15 January 2012 15: 56
    Quote: KGB161rus
    Shkolota opinions I still forgot to ask!

    Did you graduate from school long ago, or do you still go to school? fellow

    In response to this myth, in which you sincerely believe in the power of your patriotism, I quote from one clever book. So:

    After reading this story, you don't know what to do - cry or laugh. I just want to exclaim in the style of Mikhail Zadornov: "Well, what are they stupid, these Americans!" Speaking seriously, the above episode is not just a fiction, it is, excuse me, a BREED mare! It painfully resembles the fables of "Soviet military advisers" about the battles between T-72s and "Merkavas" during the 1982 Lebanese war. But here the matter is more serious - the battle between the T-72 and "Abrams" in peacetime!
    So, if you follow the flight of thought of the "Soviet military adviser", the three newest tanks that had just begun to enter the US Army crossed the border between Israel and Lebanon and moved into the interior of the latter. Just like that, with American crews, in the form of the US Army (the "adviser" testifies to this), without any cover and support, one might say, they invaded foreign territory. Note, the hostilities have not yet been conducted, the "Peace of Gallee" operation (in the interpretation of the "adviser" - "Peace of Hallee") has not yet begun. In a word, there is an undisguised fact of American aggression against Lebanon. It should be recalled that the case took place in the spring of 1982 (Operation Peace for Galilee began on June 6), when the "adviser" does not specifically report, but this does not matter at all, since since 1978 the Palestine Liberation Organization units have been located in southern Lebanon. Christian militia and UN troops. But there were no Syrian troops in southern Lebanon. They were located in the Bekaa Valley, quite far from the border with Israel. As for the latter, in the spring of 1982 it already represented not so much a border as a front line, entangled with barbed wire, studded with checkpoints and artillery positions. So you can imagine the picture - Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint are opening the slag baum and waving their hands to the American tankers in greeting, they say, let's guys kick these Muslims! To the applause of the UN soldiers, the Abrams move on! It's just that some kind of idyll appeared in the inflamed brain of the "Soviet military adviser". By the way, all the ranges of the Israel Defense Forces are located in a completely different direction, in the Negev desert. And if we assume that the "Abrams" were tested in Israel, then surely it was there. But why, there are deserts in the USA, or what? Here, of course, the "adviser" can argue - the Americans are stupid! Perhaps, but Jews are not stupid! There are no stupid Jews! And if the Americans were impatient to test their tanks in action, then a special support unit with means of repair, evacuation and combat cover would be created for this purpose. And so it turns out that three "Abrams" rolled to visit the Palestinians - it is difficult to come up with a faster way to deliver the latest American tank to the range of the 38th Research Institute in Kubinka. Maybe a special flight from Detroit!
    But what about the T-72? On the eve of the Lebanese War, only one 81st Panzer Brigade of the 3rd Syrian Panzer Division was armed with these tanks. She was deployed in Syria. It was introduced to Lebanon only at the end of the war - on June 11, 1982, and fought for a very short time, since it was withdrawn back to Syria under a ceasefire agreement. In this regard, it is not clear how the T-72 tanks could be "tested" in South Lebanon before the outbreak of hostilities, having in addition to the "Soviet military adviser" ammunition also live shells.
    I would like to advise the authors publishing such "memoirs" to be less gullible and to analyze such "hunting stories" at least from the point of view of common sense, not to mention the factual reliability. In accordance with the latter, by the way, the Abrams tanks did not pass any tests in Israel in 1982.
    1. KGB161rus
      -5
      15 January 2012 17: 02
      YOU are not penetrable gentlemen, heavy people in a place with a professor, new military equipment is best tested in combat conditions -----> any thinking person will tell you this, and it is best to give it to your ally, so that he would test it and draw conclusions for our Armed Forces, even we do this, this is a great way to test what equipment is good for without exposing our people! (I'll chew food in your mouth, because I'm tired). Let's go back to the past in the 50g, the war in North Korea, our new Migi were quickly transferred there, together with Soviet pilots and instructors, the goal is -----> to master the car, gain experience, etc., then, our pilots were not allowed to pursue American planes, and they operated within clearly defined boundaries, further, it was all classified, where you saw the names of the pilots, the sides of the planes, the amer planes shot down by our pilots, etc. this was not! because as I wrote Professor , where is the name, etc., so this wasn’t your way ?! the principle remains one, you can wait until the documents are declassified, but you will wait a long time, I am inclined to the version that everything can be in this world!
      I was right about the school, I didn’t think of another lol
      1. 0
        15 January 2012 17: 23
        Okay, full name, but where are the photos? Where are the funds objective control finally? Why should Israel hide the losses of its "allies"? Why has not a single Israeli soldier spilled out in so many years? They talked about the nuclear program, but here is SUCH SECRET wink hide.
        1. KGB161rus
          -4
          15 January 2012 17: 46
          Why should Israel hide the losses of its "allies"?


          Do not forget what kind of ally (USA) it is, so as not to hit the face with dirt!

          They talked about the nuclear program


          So near Iran, with its program. .
          1. 0
            15 January 2012 17: 56
            Do not forget what kind of ally (USA) it is, so as not to hit the face with dirt!

            Your conspiracy theory is growing like a snowball !!! fellow
            If there was an incident (which neither you nor anyone else can prove), then the Americans hit their faces in the mud and nothing prevents any Facebook user nicknamed Haim-1982 or Moisha33 from talking about such an annoying "big brother" incident. Do you know why this does not happen? That's right - because nothing of the kind happened.
      2. gor
        gor
        +2
        23 January 2012 14: 33
        The KGB there were no combat conditions at that time, or it was unclear who they wrote against whom the Abrams had broken then against the OOP? So they really saw an opponent to test their tanks))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))
        about the Korean war, find out what was there. and there was something like this, that the Mig had a rather limited fuel supply. think it over. and after the sabers with a higher thrust appeared, the instant 15 was hopelessly inferior to the saber.
  21. KGB161rus
    -6
    15 January 2012 17: 35
    Documents have their terms of disclosure, let's say you started to work if you signed a non-disclosure document, I don’t, how many 30 years have passed, it's not enough, just take our Russian intelligence officer, Gevork Andreyevich Vartanyan, you know that he was declassified only at the beginning of 200 's ?! And resigned in the early 90's. .
    1. -1
      15 January 2012 17: 44
      Are you comparing the prevention of an assassination attempt on Stalin, Rooseveld and Churchill with the alleged use of a pair of tanks in some Lebanon? The USSR has sunk into oblivion, why now hide the "fact" of the Abrams in Lebanon? Everybody already knows that Soviet military specialists "visited" there, even their names are known, but that mysterious military adviser "who violated the agreement not to disclose" in other words, 3.14zdun remained unknown.
      1. KGB161rus
        -5
        15 January 2012 17: 54
        using a pair of tanks in some Lebanon?


        The principle remains the same, more or less the difference is, and why when Iran planted Amer Bepilotnik, they began to deny everything, they said it was a fake ?! Why they did not admit, and do not admit, if they managed to take out this UAV, they would not say anything at all. . .
        1. -1
          15 January 2012 17: 59
          The principle remains the same, more or less the difference is, and why when Iran planted Amer Bepilotnik, they began to deny everything, they said it was a fake ?! Why they did not admit, and do not admit, if they managed to take out this UAV, they would not say anything at all. . .


          Learn materiel !!! Obama has publicly "advised" the return of the UAV. Where is the negation here?
          Closer to the topic.WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION OF ABRAMS IN LEBANON?
          1. KGB161rus
            -5
            15 January 2012 18: 13
            WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION OF ABRAMS IN LEBANON?

            Everyone, sailed, and for whom I wrote about North Korea, I thought the person would understand my point of view, it turned out to be all in vain, you are a difficult person, professor, and just not write (but I told you, etc.), I would like you to understand the principle of my "theories" that everything in this world is possible, but you only complicated everything, "I bet" if you got proof you wouldn't be happy with it either!
  22. KGB161rus
    -5
    15 January 2012 18: 06
    Obama publicly "advised" the return of the UAV

    Where, give the link! Clearly and clearly heard on the news that they all denied. .
    1. -2
      15 January 2012 18: 11
      Obama says US has asked Iran to return drone aircraft

      And so monsieur, do not be distracted. Now it's your turn to look for evidence, all hypothetical excuses like "well, it could have been" are not accepted.

      PS Once again, I do not need to poke !!!
      1. KGB161rus
        -3
        15 January 2012 18: 28
        PS Once again, I do not need to poke !!!


        Where am i YOU poking ?! lol
  23. -2
    15 January 2012 19: 52
    PRFOR Well, why are you dogging wink people do not understand the main concept of the use of tanks in the Israeli army well, it is very different from the Russian American tobish NATO because of the careful attitude to people, a tank in Israel does not work by default without the support of infantry and that’s all.
  24. Freedom eagle
    +2
    15 January 2012 22: 19
    Quote: KGB161rus
    I was right about the school, I didn’t think of another

    Boy, have you even finished elementary school? They taught you to read? If yes, then re-read this:

    After reading this story, you don't know what to do - cry or laugh. I just want to exclaim in the style of Mikhail Zadornov: "Well, what are they stupid, these Americans!" Speaking seriously, the above episode is not just a fiction, it is, excuse me, a BREED mare! It painfully resembles the fables of "Soviet military advisers" about the battles between T-72s and "Merkavas" during the 1982 Lebanese war. But here the matter is more serious - the battle between the T-72 and "Abrams" in peacetime!
    So, if you follow the flight of thought of the "Soviet military adviser", the three newest tanks that had just begun to enter the US Army crossed the border between Israel and Lebanon and moved into the interior of the latter. Just like that, with American crews, in the form of the US Army (the "adviser" testifies to this), without any cover and support, one might say, they invaded foreign territory. Note, the hostilities have not yet been conducted, the "Peace of Gallee" operation (in the interpretation of the "adviser" - "Peace of Hallee") has not yet begun. In a word, there is an undisguised fact of American aggression against Lebanon. It should be recalled that the case took place in the spring of 1982 (Operation Peace for Galilee began on June 6), when the "adviser" does not specifically report, but this does not matter at all, since since 1978 the Palestine Liberation Organization units have been located in southern Lebanon. Christian militia and UN troops. But there were no Syrian troops in southern Lebanon. They were located in the Bekaa Valley, quite far from the border with Israel. As for the latter, in the spring of 1982 it already represented not so much a border as a front line, entangled with barbed wire, studded with checkpoints and artillery positions. So you can imagine the picture - Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint are opening the slag baum and waving their hands to the American tankers in greeting, they say, let's guys kick these Muslims! To the applause of the UN soldiers, the Abrams move on! It's just that some kind of idyll appeared in the inflamed brain of the "Soviet military adviser". By the way, all the ranges of the Israel Defense Forces are located in a completely different direction, in the Negev desert. And if we assume that the "Abrams" were tested in Israel, then surely it was there. But why, there are deserts in the USA, or what? Here, of course, the "adviser" can argue - the Americans are stupid! Perhaps, but Jews are not stupid! There are no stupid Jews! And if the Americans were impatient to test their tanks in action, then a special support unit with means of repair, evacuation and combat cover would be created for this purpose. And so it turns out that three "Abrams" rolled to visit the Palestinians - it is difficult to come up with a faster way to deliver the latest American tank to the range of the 38th Research Institute in Kubinka. Maybe a special flight from Detroit!
    But what about the T-72? On the eve of the Lebanese War, only one 81st Panzer Brigade of the 3rd Syrian Panzer Division was armed with these tanks. She was deployed in Syria. It was introduced to Lebanon only at the end of the war - on June 11, 1982, and fought for a very short time, since it was withdrawn back to Syria under a ceasefire agreement. In this regard, it is not clear how the T-72 tanks could be "tested" in South Lebanon before the outbreak of hostilities, having in addition to the "Soviet military adviser" ammunition also live shells.
    I would like to advise the authors publishing such "memoirs" to be less gullible and to analyze such "hunting stories" at least from the point of view of common sense, not to mention the factual reliability. In accordance with the latter, by the way, the Abrams tanks did not pass any tests in Israel in 1982.

    I specially highlight in hot color, so that you can see better.

    Quote: professor
    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION OF ABRAMS IN LEBANON?

    They are there, but only in the inflamed brain of an unnamed "Soviet military adviser" who, moreover, they do not know samples of long-existing foreign armored vehicles. Just what is this phrase from his "memoirs":

    Subsequently, when comparing photographs to identify the tanks with which the collision occurred, the American M1 Abrams was identified in it, to the surprise of many.


    It turns out that not only the unnamed "Soviet military adviser" does not know the models of armored vehicles of a potential enemy, but also his other colleagues. lol But already at that time, photographs, drawings, diagrams, and performance characteristics of the Abrams were published in many publicly available Soviet military magazines.
    Then what are they, nafig, "military advisers"?
  25. evening
    +1
    15 January 2012 23: 30
    Quote: professor
    With modern SLA, more ammunition is not critical.

    This is nonsense. All modern tanks acquire a modern SLA, however, they are not able to reduce their ammunition capacity, just like that.
    Or do Israeli Merkavs, for example, with a complete set of more modern MSAs, simultaneously reduce their ammunition?
    Quote: professor
    Semiautomatic (10-shot magazine) is optional
    Another nonsense. Instead of a semiautomatic device, nothing else can be established - this is a structural element of the tank.
    Quote: professor
    if desired, may not contain shots at all

    Your strange desires smile
    Quote: professor
    shots, which by the way are stored in individual heat-resistant containers

    these containers are a dead poultice. When a projectile is hit, it will explode / detonate, along with the container and the tank to boot. When the charge is hit, it will ignite, and these are several cubes of very hot gases that will burn through any container and again detonate the projectile of the corresponding shot. And the design of this semiautomatic device will "direct" the energy of the explosion of the projectile straight into the fighting compartment, because they are connected by a window for supplying shells. The outcome is predictable.

    The concept of using tanks in the Israeli army is very different from the Russian American Tobish NATO because of the careful attitude to people, the tank in Israel does not work by default without the support of infantry and that’s all.Yes, yes - it was clearly seen in 2006 sad when the Lebanese shredded Merkav, who trampled on a column, but without infantry cover and without reconnaissance.
    1. +2
      16 January 2012 00: 56
      It's a bullshit.

      Why so rude?

      For your information:
      1. The probability of hitting an enemy tank from the first shot of modern tanks approaches with 100%.
      2. Logistics in tank brigades has already been revised - no one carries shells in quantities of 40 summer ago for the tank for the same reason - the 30 tank has no potential enemy on the battlefield and it has not happened in the last 30 years that the tank was left without shells.

      Another nonsense. Instead of a semiautomatic device, nothing else can be established - this is a structural element of the tank.

      Again, rough and not accurate. This "semiautomatic device" is only a revolving drum controlled by a microprocessor. It can or may not be installed. The loader still remains in the tank and charges this drum, and there is no problem to load one round at a time if desired.
      Here is a photo of the 4 Merkava without a drum (this is not an automatic machine on the T-90 without which you can’t go anywhere):


      these containers are for a dead poultice.

      Well, I don’t understand anything in tanks, but these stupid Israelis do not understand tanks at all. Probably never fought. And why do they put a fire extinguishing system if all the same based on your words it does not help. And why do not all of them wrecked tanks look like with a tower meters in 30-40 from the hull?

      And the creator of the Merkava, Israel Tal, that he generally understands in tanks. He graduated from the Polytechnic and did not serve in the army at all. Or is he still an experienced tanker who has gone from a private to brigadier general?
  26. 0
    16 January 2012 01: 24
    Quote: professor
    1. The probability of hitting an enemy tank from the first shot of modern tanks approaches with 100%.

    It’s approaching, but not 100 pracents. And not defeats, but hitting the target from the first shot - and this does not mean a guaranteed conclusion of the enemy tank’s failure --- well, if not shoot at the T-55 or Leopard 1.
    Quote: vecher
    Quote: professor
    shots, which by the way are stored in individual heat-resistant containers

    Individual armored containers have proven themselves well, especially ..wet ..
    Quote: professor
    And why do not all of them wrecked tanks look like with a tower meters in 30-40 from the hull?

    The placement of ammunition and the large evacuation door does not contribute to the collapse of the tower ---- like Soviet tanks --- but the crew is guaranteed to die when the ammunition detonates --- two cases in Lebanon 2006 Merkava 4 and Merkava 2
    Quote: professor
    And the creator of the Merkava, Israel Tal, that he generally understands in tanks

    Not an argument ---- the rest of the tanks were also not made by amateurs.
    Quote: professor
    without a drum (this is not an automatic machine on the T-90 without which you can’t go anywhere):

    And why didn’t you please the drum and the carousel? You still get a direct hit on it on the T-72-T-90.
  27. denis29_82
    -1
    16 January 2012 05: 34
    Judging by the regular tankosrats "Merkava against all" on any resources where such a conversation begins, we can safely assume that in the RU zone nuuuu oooocheen a lot of Jews are sitting right from Israel about the super duper Merkava and broadcasting)
  28. evening
    -1
    16 January 2012 20: 36
    Quote: professor
    Why so rude?
    nothing personal laughing - just a short and concise summary of the essence.
    Quote: professor
    1. The probability of hitting an enemy tank from the first shot of modern tanks approaches with 100%.
    distance, weather conditions, camouflage, etc. are not taken into account. etc. Ie pulling ...
    Quote: professor
    2. Logistics in tank brigades has already been revised
    and what do you know about the logistics of tank units then and now? Or are you just "pulling on"?
    Quote: professor
    This "semiautomatic device" is only a revolving drum controlled by a microprocessor. It can or may not be installed.
    I think you understand - what is my expression on this pearl winked
    The semiautomatic device is installed at the factory, and it is problematic to remove it in the field. And nobody needs it. You can not equip it with shells, but why? To "pull" tokmo laughing
    Quote: professor
    Here is a photo of Merkava 4 without a drum

    Firstly, this is most likely not 1. Because the hatch is visible. But most importantly, the photographer is with his back to the stern, so the semiautomatic device, in principle, could not get into the frame.
    Quote: professor
    Well, I don’t understand anything in tanks, but these stupid Israelis do not understand tanks at all.

    These are your words fellow
    Quote: professor
    And why do they put a fire extinguishing system if all the same based on your words it does not help.

    What does the fire fighting system have to do with the issue under discussion? You are clearly forgotten.
    Shells are designed to reduce the likelihood of being hit by shells from shrapnel when breaking through armor. There is just a layer of "foam" to hold back small fragments. In the T-72, this role is played by the protective covers of the AZ conveyor, and the body and contents of the tanks.
    A shell fire, especially detonation, a pencil case will not stop.
    Quote: professor
    And the creator of the Merkava, Israel Tal, that he generally understands in tanks. He graduated from the Polytechnic and did not serve in the army at all. Or is he still an experienced tanker who has gone from a private to brigadier general?

    Those. - manager.
    1. +1
      16 January 2012 22: 14
      nothing personal - just a short and capacious summary of the essence.

      Well, at the expense of "essentially" you got a little excited. wink
      distance, weather conditions, camouflage, etc. are not taken into account. etc.

      For your information, the LMS just takes all this into account. As an example, albeit not quite close, look at how many bombs were used by France and England in Libya. And how many years would they have to use 30 ago? The tank’s ability to hit another tank has not stood still all these years. At the expense of camouflage, did you see the tank in the thermal imager? I have seen.

      and what do you know about the logistics of tank units then and now? Or are you just "pulling on"?

      I know one chemist doctor who serves as a reserve logistic officer in the IDF. So, that is from his words. At the expense of changes in the calculation of the consumption of shells in the American army, information passed, I find it - I'll post it.

      The semiautomatic device is installed at the factory, and it is problematic to remove it in the field.

      I can give a photo of replacing the barrel or engine (I don’t even speak about tracks and rollers) in the field. There is no problem mounting or dismounting the drum in question. By the way, on the Independence Day of Israel, the IDF opens some bases for a wide range of visitors. I managed to visit three. Most surprised by the number of Arabs among the public - they obviously come to get acquainted than they will be chased. The biggest effect in my opinion was produced by Apaches ...
      So, on the basis of the ground forces, two brigades held demonstration competitions to replace the engine on the Merkava. The team that did it for ... won




      In 1, this is most likely not 4. Because the hatch is visible.

      "likely" fellow Believe it Merkava 4. Where did you see the nonexistent loader hatch?

      What does the fire fighting system have to do with the issue under discussion?

      Direct. I can show a video of an ATGM firing on an "empty" tank. And what a miracle does not burn. And what is there to actually burn, there is no ammunition. So, the fire extinguishing system, like the "foam" containers, is installed so that the ammunition does not burn.



      manager

      You could say so, only this "manager" in tanks understood firsthand and smelled a lot of gunpowder.
  29. -1
    16 January 2012 23: 04
    Quote: professor
    the fire extinguishing system as well as "foam" containers is installed so that the ammunition does not burn.

    do they have that pazharatusheniya system in the fighting compartment where the crew is sitting?
    1. 0
      16 January 2012 23: 07
      Look at the last photo.
  30. -1
    16 January 2012 23: 29
    Quote: professor
    Look at the last photo.

    And? Is this a red fire extinguisher? Or does the automatic fire extinguishing system not use toxic gas?
    Quote: professor
    see how many bombs were used by France and England in Libya

    Israeli shells already equipped with homing systems?
    Quote: professor
    And what a miracle does not burn. And what is actually burning there

    and not fueled?

    And if you are related to the article itself --- why on the penultimate photo --- is a model from the Academy?
  31. 0
    17 January 2012 10: 34
    And? Is this a red fire extinguisher? Or does the automatic fire extinguishing system not use toxic gas?

    Significant measures have been taken to protect the tank crew from fires inside the vehicle: a high-speed fire extinguishing system provides for the detection and suppression of internal fires both in the inhabited compartment and in the engine-transmission compartment.

    T-72: "Each tank is equipped with an emergency fire extinguishing system - these are three 2,5 liter cylinders filled with freon or freon. Two of these cylinders are in the fighting compartment of the tank, one in the engine compartment. They are enough to put out a tank even in combat conditions."

    Israeli shells already equipped with homing systems?

    And they did it too, and for a long time.
    Tank Extended Range Munitions with Intelligent Brain on board.
    In conjunction with USA Raytheon Corporation, Israel Military
    Industries (IMI) & RAFAEL in production & placed aboard IDF
    MBT Merkava Mk IV's a state-of-the-art mortar shell which has
    a range of greater than 10 miles & with an on-board GPS system
    that hits its targets within a three-yard radius.




    LAHAT 120mm missile




    and not fueled?

    Here, besides fuel, there was something else that was.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk

    And here it wasn’t (fuel in this case had nothing to do with it).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vJhqQquIL_U#t=378s

    And if you are related to the article itself --- why on the penultimate photo --- is a model from the Academy?

    I have no direct relation to the article, so I can not answer your question.
  32. 0
    17 January 2012 12: 24
    Quote: professor
    extinguishing internal fires as in an inhabited compartment,

    pretty optically written
    Quote: professor
    T-72: "Each tank is equipped with an emergency fire extinguishing system - these are three 2,5-liter cylinders filled with freon or freon. Two such cylinders are in the fighting compartment of the tank, one in the engine compartment. They are quite enough to extinguish the tank even in combat conditions. "

    Chlodons are not taxic (especially) but less effective than the Israeli mixture
    and where is all the same in the photo a sprinkler or a spray gun of the anti-fire system?
    Quote: professor
    LAHAT 120mm missile

    It’s missed, it’s kind of like ROCKET, and we are talking about BPS, missiles on Soviet tanks have been standing for a very long time, so you are not in the same steppe a dialogue--
    Quote: professor
    Here, besides fuel, there was something else that was.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk

    And what? Termite was poured --- like in a joke with the expansion of the T-72 from Javelin when 200 kg of explosives were added there for force.
  33. -1
    17 January 2012 13: 05
    where are all the same in the photo a sprinkler or spray gun of the anti-fire system?

    I will find a photo - lay out

    It’s missed, it’s kind of ROCKET, and we’re talking about BPS, missiles on Soviet tanks have been standing for a very long time

    1. I just say that over the past 10-20 years, the accuracy of defeat from the first shot has grown significantly (including thanks to missiles).
    2. Is Tank Extended Range Munitions a rocket too?

    And what's there?

    And there the empty tank does not burn, since there is nothing to burn. Even in the event of an MTO defeat, the fire extinguishing system usually does its job.
    for example
    The fire extinguishing system of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, including a motor-transmission compartment (MTO), which is sealed for the duration of fire fighting, in which a stagnant gas zone is formed during fire fighting, the fuel tanks are protected in an armored compartment isolated from the inhabited compartment, air ducts supplying air from the outside to the engine and units requiring cooling, and the air that is diverted from these units outside the MTO, fire extinguishing cylinders, optical and thermal sensors, anti-theft equipment roast equipment, a sealed armored partition between the inhabited compartment and the MTO, characterized in that it is additionally equipped with a pre-emptive automatic feed subsystem for a predetermined short time of the exhaust gases from the engine exhaust manifold to the MTO free volume and providing MTO sealing after breaking through the armor and triggering the armor penetration sensor in MTO.
  34. 0
    17 January 2012 13: 58
    [quote = Kars] And what is it? [/ quote]
    It means that it’s poured in the video, but I don’t ask anything about the MTO --- I focus on the fighting compartment where the merkava has ammunition, including the so-called, amphibious assault .. [quote = professor] 1. I just say that over the past 10-20 years the accuracy of defeat from the first shot [/ quote]
    But what does this have to do with guided missile systems? [Quote = professor] For your information, the LMS just takes all this into account. [/ Quote]
    1. The probability of hitting an enemy tank from the first shot in modern tanks approaches with 100%. [/ Quote]
    I’m sorry to clarify what you’re talking about missiles - and they are based on a very limited number of tank models. So let’s drop the missiles - and my homing question related to BPS and CS [quote = professor] 2. Tank Extended Range Munitions is also a rocket? [/ Quote]
    Not familiar, but does she have a rocket engine? And how does she correct her trajectory
    1. -2
      17 January 2012 14: 39
      Thanks to the LMS, absolutely all modern ammunition has become much more accurate and therefore there is no need to carry them in large quantities.

      Not familiar, but does she have a rocket engine? And how does she correct her trajectory

      This projectile has no rocket engine and it corrects its trajectory with flaps. Guided by GPS or laser tag.
  35. 0
    17 January 2012 15: 47
    Quote: professor
    Thanks to the SLA, absolutely all modern ammunition has become an order of magnitude

    but I hope you will not argue about 100%
    Quote: professor
    This projectile has no rocket engine and it corrects its trajectory with flaps. Guided by GPS or laser tag.

    yes and as it is written
    Quote: professor
    greater than 10 miles

    that is, 16 km, it will be flaps of control, so there is something
    and Tank Extended Range Munitions, through a search, provides only American ammunition removed from design --- can you share a link?
  36. -2
    17 January 2012 16: 14
    but I hope you will not argue about 100%

    I already wrote "approaching 100%"

    that is, 16 km, it will be flaps of control, so there is something

    There is no active engine, and with flaps it only needs to be adjusted slightly since the tank shoots them in the direction of the target. The planning bomb, by the way, is also controlled only by flaps. The only problem is target designation at such a distance.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckS
    cript = blogscript & plckElementId = blogDest & plckBlogPage = BlogViewPost & plckPostId = Blo
    g%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A20a58e89-daf9-41c6-8b53-6d70ff84d
    bd1
  37. -1
    17 January 2012 19: 29
    Maybe they won’t come up with --- but even this projectile will not justify a reduction in ammunition. The main objectives of the tank are fortified firing points of the enemy --- and not grazing on a machine gun in the UR dugout. Even Israel can afford it --- 1-2 projectile per tank.
    1. -1
      17 January 2012 23: 59
      Maybe they won’t come up with it --- but even this shell will not justify a reduction in ammunition.

      They know better.
      1. 0
        18 January 2012 20: 48
        In that they increased the BC from 46 shells in MK3 to 48 shells in MK4?
  38. 0
    17 January 2012 23: 06
    In addition, Nexter is working on an 120 mm. out of the line of sight of ammunition for guns: Polynege, which can be commissioned by the 2015 year, Breda says.

    Well, I don’t know both Krasnopol and Kitolov, it’s kind of already in arsenal. And yet it’s not that.
  39. evening
    +1
    18 January 2012 20: 40
    Quote: professor
    who serves as a reserve logistics officer in the IDF. So, that is from his words.
    So what ammunition "in his words" was carried / carried
    in the convoy of a battalion / division?
    Quote: professor
    I can give a photo of replacing the barrel or engine (I don’t even speak about tracks and rollers) in the field. There is no problem mounting or dismounting the drum in question.
    When you bring a photo of a drum replacement in the field, then you can say "no problem". Until then, you blah blah ...
    Quote: professor
    Believe it Merkava 4. Where did you see the nonexistent loader hatch?
    That’s why you don’t believe it. Do not inspire.
    And the hatch is in its place. For those who represent the device of the tank, finding it (its location) is easy.
    Quote: professor
    So, the fire extinguishing system, like the "foam" containers, is installed so that the ammunition does not burn.

    "So" you were wrong again recourse Shell cases protect the projectile from damage from the outside. If the fragment breaks through the pencil case and ignites the charge, then the pencil case will not help anyone.
    Quote: professor
    this "manager" in tanks understood firsthand and smelled a lot of gunpowder.

    Well, there are millions of such people in the world. However, to create an optimal tank design, the listed human properties are few, you need engineering experience. For lack of such, the Jews turned out to have a slanting structure, similar to a tank.

    Israeli shells already equipped with homing systems?
    And they did it too, and for a long time.
    and what does the American Exalibur shell (on which caliber - 155 is written) have anything to do with Merkava? Or just to the heap? lol
    But the Jews themselves are not happy with Lahat. Because they do not buy it.
    A tank is a direct-range weapon; for this, it is equipped with armor. Nobody wants to clog it with chips, which can be used with other carriers with greater efficiency.
    1. -3
      18 January 2012 21: 08
      And the hatch is in its place. For those who represent the device of the tank, finding it (its location) is easy.

      Well, enlighten those who can’t imagine a tank device like me. Mark the arrow on the photo, otherwise it’s also blah blah ...

      Shell cases protect the projectile from damage from the outside. If the fragment breaks through the pencil case and ignites the charge, then the pencil case will not help anyone.

      Are you from personal experience?

      But the Jews themselves are not happy with Lahat.

      Do not find it difficult to share a source of information. And it looks more like a figment of your imagination.

      Well, there are millions of such people in the world.

      In order to be unfounded, give an example of at least five out of a million people who have gone from a private to a combat brigadier general.

      For lack of such, the Jews turned out to have a slanting structure, similar to a tank.

      And I thought we were discussing a tank here ... wink
      1. 0
        18 January 2012 22: 55
        Quote: professor
        And the hatch is in its place. For those who represent the device of the tank, finding it (its location) is easy.

        “Well, enlighten those who cannot imagine a tank device like me.” Mark the arrow on the photo, otherwise it’s also blah blah ...

        Interestingly, on this page there is a photo of the "Merkav" with loader hatches, and there are also without. What is the latest modification?
        1. -2
          18 January 2012 23: 19
          Merkava 4 - commander’s hatch (loader’s hatch was canceled since each hatch weakens)


          on previous models there were two hatches
          1. -1
            18 January 2012 23: 55
            And what is the difference between two hatches from the top or one? Charging is present in the carriage.
          2. 0
            20 January 2012 21: 47
            Quote: professor
            on previous models there were two hatches

            On the forum http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/193-t-90-protiv-abramsa/page/4/scoreid/1137/ I drew the attention of the locals to the absence of a loader hatch on the later editions of the Merkavas.
            Corrected: "On the last series of Mk4 (on which" Trophy ") the loader's hatch is available ..."
            1. -3
              20 January 2012 22: 25
  40. -3
    18 January 2012 21: 15
    And the hatch is in its place. For those who represent the device of the tank, finding it (its location) is easy.

    Well, enlighten those who can’t imagine a tank device like me. Mark the arrow on the photo, otherwise it’s also blah blah ...

    Shell cases protect the projectile from damage from the outside. If the fragment breaks through the pencil case and ignites the charge, then the pencil case will not help anyone.

    Are you from personal experience?

    But the Jews themselves are not happy with Lahat.

    Do not find it difficult to share a source of information. And it looks more like a figment of your imagination.

    Well, there are millions of such people in the world.

    In order to be unfounded, give an example of at least five out of a million people who have gone from a private to a combat brigadier general.

    For lack of such, the Jews turned out to have a slanting structure, similar to a tank.

    And I thought we were discussing a tank here ... wink
    1. -1
      19 January 2012 00: 02
      Quote: professor
      Shell cases protect the projectile from damage from the outside. If the fragment breaks through the pencil case and ignites the charge, then the pencil case will not help anyone.
      Are you from personal experience?

      this is absolutely logical, the pencil cases prevent a quick explosion when the fire is in the fighting compartment ---- give time to either put out or evacuate --- when the BPS core or cumulative jet hits directly (after passing through the armor), the shell will light up and explode. Also, the pencil cases can localize detonation BK (not all shells explode)
  41. evening
    +1
    18 January 2012 21: 46
    Quote: professor
    Well, enlighten those who can’t imagine a tank device like me.
    I will not do this out of principle. Because the conversation is in this case about a semi-automatic loading, which, in principle, cannot be observed in this photo, even if it was an MK-4.
    Quote: professor
    Are you from personal experience?

    You may find it hard to understand, but most people use the knowledge of others. And fingers do not stick in sockets wink
    Quote: professor
    Do not find it difficult to share a source of information
    This is from the forum conversations - the Israelis (forum) stated that they did not see the point in Lahat, due to the availability of more effective ATGMs, therefore they did not buy it. Like it or not - it doesn’t matter. TOUR is an option, not a widespread ammunition. Mainly due to the high cost.
    Quote: professor
    give an example of at least five out of a million people who have gone from a private to a combat brigadier general.

    The Union had entire marshals of armored forces. And you wave some kind of foreman wink
  42. -3
    18 January 2012 21: 55
    I will not do this out of principle.

    Convenient position. feel So where is the loader’s hatch in this miserable photo?
    Was there a boy? fellow

    This is from the forum conversations - the Israelis (forum) stated that they did not see the point in Lahat, due to the availability of more effective ATGMs, therefore they did not buy it.

    OBS - One Grandma Said

    The Union had entire marshals of armored forces.

    Are millions of marshals right? Well, at least 5 (five), if not even the marshals, the colonel general who began his combat path as an ordinary?
  43. evening
    -1
    19 January 2012 22: 06
    The ammunition from the floor (5-shell drum) was also removed because it interferes with the loader, because occupies a large floor area. It also interferes with the mechanical driver if he wants to move to BO. But the comparatively enormous height of the BO forced me to oust and make mechanized laying in a tower niche, which, in the presence of a charging one, was an additional reason for breakage. It would be more profitable to have a simple, as in the stern of the hull, ammunition. But the upper shells in it would be accessible only to gullivers wink
    Also, the MK-4 has problems with a German diesel engine. Due to the inability to provide normal cooling in the clamped MTO, it was necessary to limit the power. Because the engine was constantly overheating and prematurely failed, in droves.
  44. ab
    ab
    0
    8 March 2012 15: 54
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crGVfOrv78Y&feature=related
  45. ab
    ab
    0
    12 March 2012 14: 31
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alSYdREOfNg&feature=g-vrec&context=G261f56aRVAAAA
    AAAAAg
  46. Nubia2
    +1
    15 July 2012 19: 23
    Quote: and1975
    Merkava "T-72 puts only time to tighten tights I know not by hearsay

    put it yourself?
  47. +2
    16 July 2012 08: 08
    The people, of course, the fur industry in Russia is traditionally in one of the first places in the world, but hats are not the best way to fight tanks in general and the Merkava in particular. Moreover, the current modifications of this tank differ from the first as the sky from the earth. And the Israelis have enough T72 to study its strengths and weaknesses and find appropriate means of attack and defense. And not only from T72 but also from the same RPGs including the most modern Russian ones. After all, what gets to the "Arab friends" gets to the Israelis and who knows who before.
    Further. The Israelis have developed an active protection system for the Merkava, providing for the possibility of detecting ATGM targets and destroying them in the closest zone. Moreover, these funds are hitting ATGMs not towards, but from top to bottom. I do not even mention systems for monitoring the battlefield, target detection, target designation and fire control, and other cunning electronics with kibenimatics. Moreover, all this electronics works in close cooperation with the ACCU of the battlefield and vaseoperating aviation, which means that the tactical picture, target designation, etc. data can be received by the tank commander from above, thereby limiting the need to turn on their own active sensors, and therefore increasing the stealth of the tank. Add to this the active use of "smart" ammunition developed both at home and by Israel's allies and you get a not-so-weak picture of a "Jewish tank"
  48. 0
    18 August 2015 10: 15
    Quote: KGB161rus
    Well, his gun is modern

    and what is wrong with the t-72 gun?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"